Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
If there were a way to engender a perception that the mediation process was conjunct in some real way to the arbitration committee, this would not only improve the functionality of the mediation committee, but also *potentially* effectively _restrict_ the number of cases that actually flared up to a state that can only be remedied by arbitration. "A stitch in time, saves nine!"
Before you criticize something, it would be very helpful to read the relevant documentation:
"... in most cases, the arbitration committee will only hear cases referred to them by the Mediation Committee or directly from Jimmy Wales."
"The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it."
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests
I for one will not vote to hear any case where I think that earlier steps in the dispute resolution process would help. I will also not vote to hear cases I think are frivolous.
But a majority vote by the mediation committee would add a great deal of weight to my decision to vote to hear a case. As would a community poll.
For me at least, requests by individuals is just so much background noise.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html